"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement

Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Peter Geach (1916 - 2013)

Commonweal reports that Peter Geach -- philosopher, one of the fathers
of “analytical Thomism,” husband of Elizabeth Anscombe (with whom he is
pictured in a
famous photo by Steve Pyke), and Catholic father of seven -- has died. A list of some of Geach’s publications can be
found at Wikipedia. I had reason to examine some of Geach’s ideas
in a
recent post. RIP.

Geach and Anscombe was people (actually their writings) which bring me strength my Christian faith. I will pray for him.

There are not many top-notch philosophers like Geach not only among Roman Catholics but also among secularists of different kinds and theists. Geach was among leading analytic philosophers in Golden Age and I hope that this generation of philosophers will produce such great works.

I’m not that big of a fan of Pruss; I think he’s way too sporadic of a writer. I won’t deny that he very intelligent and knowledgeable though.

One thing that I thought was a weakness of his book was that he didn’t include an indirect proof of the PSR by reductio ad absurdum. This was standard in all of the early 20th century scholastic textbooks and, given his Thomistic commitments, would seem to be the sort of argument he would want to explore.

In fact, even though he wrote a whole section on how the PSR might be self-evident, and he thinks it is himself, as far as I can tell, he never even mentions that such a proof might be possible. The way he spoke, it seemed like that admitting that the PSR is self-evident would entail that one could prove it in no way, or that such an attempt at a proof would be counter-productive.

But then, I’m having trouble seeing how we could ever doubt the truth of any finding (or at least most) in mathematics, since they are at least usually self-evident in the required sense.

Anscombe was always the better philosopher, but Geach certainly has strengths of his own. I liked his collection of essays, Truth and Hope, although there are significant portions with which I disagree.

On Bobcat's question, I think Catholic philosophers today have a tendency to be either too narrow or insufficiently rigorous to quite compare with Geach. But it could be that Catholic philosophy -- which, since the genuinely Catholic must be be genuinely catholic, has to touch on a lot of things -- just takes time to develop properly.

Anonymous,

Marion would otherwise be an excellent candidate (and should be more widely read among Catholic philosophers of any stripe), but he's over 60 -- he was born in 1946.

In general I would say it's probably best with Marion to go more or less in order; *God Without Being* and *Cartesian Questions* are both quite good, as long as you remember that they are early works and he has modified and refined details since.

What's with all the recent Thomistic/Catholic philosophers living into their 90's anyways? Gilson, Maritain, Adler, Pieper, Geach, Norris Clarke, Benedict Ashley, William Wallace, et al. Must be good for you.

A certain Edward Feser gets to the point faster and the ideas are set more precisely and clearly than any other philosopher these days, with exception to Joseph Ratzinger, in my opinion. I really wish Dr. Feser would write his version of Adler's Ten Philosophical Mistakes. ~ Mark

About Me

I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.